Judge will rule Thursday on Tim Eyman’s ‘gun to the head’ initiative

After hearing arguments Tuesday and spending a weekend studying briefs, King County Superior Court Judge William Downing will rule Thursday on the legality of Tim Eyman’s “gun to the head” initiative, which would slash a penny from the state sales tax in April if the Washington Legislature doesn’t put an Eyman-backed constitutional amendment on the November ballot.

Initiative promoter Tim Eyman: “I am exploding with optimism.”

Initiative 1366 narrowly passed last November and was immediately challenged by the League of Women Voters and two legislators.

The initiative sets an April 15 deadline for the Legislature to work Eyman’s will. The initiative promoter wants the state constitution amended to require a two-thirds vote in each house of the Legislature to raise revenue or close tax loopholes. Only the Legislature would be able to put amendments on the ballot. If the Legislature doesn’t act, the state share of the sales tax would be reduced from 6.5 to 5.5 percent.

The measure would blow an immediate $1.4 billion hole in the state budget at a time when the Legislature is striving to meet a Supreme Court requirement that the state fully fund K-12 education. The loss of revenue would total $8 billion over six years, according to a study by the state’s Office of Financial Management.

“Putting a gun to someone’s head is really a threat; it is not an encouragement,” Paul Lawrence, attorney for the initiative’s challengers, said in summing up his case.

Eyman claimed victory in a letter written after oral arguments. “I am exploding with optimism,” he told supporters.

Eyman did something lawyers rarely do. He second-guessed how the judge will rule. “Some judges are poker players who keep their cards close to the vest,” he wrote. “Judge William Downing didn’t go with that approach today. He signaled early and often he wasn’t buying what I-1366’s opponents were selling.”

“I’m not naive,” Eyman added. “I understand that ‘the establishment’ (which certainly includes judges) are not in favor of I-1366. I doubt a single judge in Washington personally voted for it. But it’s simply not enough of a reason to reject it — they need a compelling legal justification. And opponents didn’t present one.”

Attorney General Bob Ferguson: He is investigating Public Disclosure Commission report that Tim Eyman took money from a signature-gathering firm he hired.

Eyman, who makes his living sponsoring initiatives, went on to tell followers: “Please send us a donation of $10, $25, $50, $100, $250, $500, $1,000, $2,500, $5,000 or more (there are no limits on how much can be given).”

Opponents were more restrained, although Andrew Villeneuve of the Northwest Progressive Institute said: “We had a great morning in court.”

The legal challenge to I-1366 is twofold. Opponents argue that amendments to the state constitution cannot be proposed by initiative, and that Eyman’s measure works to do just that. They have also argued that ballot initiatives must be limited to a single subject. I-1366 directs the Legislature to put an amendment on the ballot. It also slashes the sales tax if they don’t.

“The point of this initiative is to coerce lawmakers to do Eyman’s bidding,” said Villeneuve. “The constitution says initiatives must have one subject. This one has multiple subjects. It would reduce the sales tax, and use that reduction to coerce the Legislature to do Eyman’s bidding.”

Villeneuve has been fighting Eyman initiatives since he was a teenager. He depicts Eyman as an ersatz populist who is really funded by the wealthy right. “Eyman speaks as though he represents the voters,” said Villeneuve. “He does not. He has never been elected by the people of Washington to any position of responsibility. He’s an extremist backed by millionaires and billionaires who forces public votes on schemes maliciously concocted to defund public services and wreck government.”

Eyman has pressed on despite an investigation of his activities by the state attorney general’s office.

The state Public Disclosure Commission, in a report last year, found that Eyman received money from a signature-gathering firm he hired and put that money to his personal use. It cited testimony on a series of payments to Eyman by those hired to put his initiatives on the ballot.